Readers' comments

Because the blog quotes multiple sources, can I just ask if the author checked for consistency in terms of using cost of production or open market value? In the case of drugs, there is a very large difference between cost of production (next to nothing) and market value. In some others, the difference may be a lot smaller. In some cases, unquantifiable (e.g. human organs).

Leaving aside the fact that owing to its own nature it is almost impossible to give robust figures about illegal drugs (they are educated guesses at best), the fact is that the vast differences in the figures published by both government sources (UNODC, ONDCP, CICAD etc.) and private ones (Academics, ONGs, Think Tanks, etc.) are used and misused opportunistically to advance and support all kinds of arguments both against and in favour of Prohibition and the War on Drugs policies.

The ONDCP, for instance, keeps under wraps the methodology it uses to calculate its figures, so nobody knows how they are estimated and how accurate or inaccurate they may be.

As far as the UNODC data is concerned, the figures more widely used are mid-values, which are just one of the three values estimated by this organisation: low, mid and high.

In its latest publication, World Drug Report 2011, for instance, the ranges of UNODC figures are as follows:

A good example of how problematic statistics about drugs can be, I strongly recommend this short document: Narcoleaks(2012)-Cocaine Seized Worldwide Highest Ever in 2011. It can be downloaded from the "Key Research Papers" page on my website "stopthewarondrugs-dot-org"

The moral here is twofold. One, data and figures about illicit drugs, be it production, consumption, market value, etc. should be taken, not with a pinch, but a large spoon of salt. Two, to prevent manipulation by vested interests, drugs data should be gathered, evaluated, validated and published by independent, transparent and accountable bodies.

"If anything, though, the numbers on drugs are better than those on counterfeit goods."

Could TE explain why they think so?

In my estimation, it would be far more difficult to track drugs, as the transactions are almost always in cash or cash equivalents, and with very few exceptions are not sold publicly. Whereas you can find and pay for counterfeit goods online with a credit card, and these companies actually register themselves, atleast some of the time.

Also, in sharp contrast to counterfeit goods and drugs, with "pirated" material it is impossible to quantify the actual effect, as a vast majority of the time the person getting a pirated copy of something would've never paid for it otherwise - they simply would've gone without or purchased a cheaper replacement.

It looks like the market-based provision of human organs has an enormous potential for growth. Perhaps resurrecting the century-old, but still effective, Burke/Hare process can expand this life-saving industry.

I think the problem (probably the wrong word) with organ trafficking is that you need at least one doctor in the process. Doctors make plenty of money without resorting to heinous crimes, so they lack a key motivation for enabling that "industry".